I sent this off to the Vancouver City Council moments ago. The wind really did blow the stuff off of my “reference table” (it’s a stool). The truth is though, I’ve been thinking about dropping them a line for a few days now.
The subject of the correspondence was the current cannabis collective garden moratorium.
I should set up a donate button for a bail fund, huh?
Good day Council.
I hope this Monday has found you well.
I was up here in the loft doing a bit of writing (I’m published, you know) and a big breeze came through the window scattering a stack of my reference paperwork. Yeah, it’s a mess up here. The Missus tells me there’s a bit of weather headed this way. I certainly hope so. I do enjoy the thunder and lightning.
Gathering up the clutter I spied “Staff Report 111-11.” That report, and associated documents, would be relevant to the silly moratorium you folks enacted here a while back.
I say “silly” because, frankly, it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Still – in the spirit of having good fun – I was wondering how you all are coming along on that work plan? I’m guessing you’re running a touch behind, eh?
I mean, task one is “identifying stake holders and their issues.” Though I must wonder why a school would be listed as a stake holder. Perhaps you have interest in educating adolescents about cannabis? Hey, if you guys can be silly why can’t I join in the fun?
I have identified myself as a stake holder. I have identified myself as a disabled veteran holding a medicinal cannabis recommendation. I have offered to confer with you on the subject. I have offered to meet with not only each and every one of you, but also your advisor Ted Gathe.
Not a peep.
Therefore, I must conclude that Task 1 of the “Work Plan” hasn’t been accomplished.
If I’m reading the material correctly (and I’ll admit this last read was nothing more than a brief scan) your silly moratorium becomes a pumpkin in about 7 working days. You’d best get cracking!
You guys are a riot, I’m tellin’ ya…. Heh, heh, heh.
Capn Drift's Blog 
Dan Jacobs said,
July 8, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Kick it again for me. I got about as much use for the Vancouver City Council as I got for a glass motorcycle tires.
capndrift said,
July 8, 2012 at 10:48 pm
…from a man living in an adjacent town.
The wind must be blowing in your direction, eh, Dan?
Heh.
capndrift said,
July 9, 2012 at 11:52 am
I got a reply from one of the council members this morning. The City intends to extend the moratorium. The councilman was kind enough to offer a link to a video of the meeting where it was decided to extend, uh, at another meeting. You can watch it yourself, should you care to.
http://bit.ly/NeUG59
I find it terribly unprofessional the mayor would eat a candy bar (something) while chairing the meeting (shrug).
I revealed to the gentleman if I can ever manage to secure legal assistance I will submit an injunction before the court. I even showed him where in the law I am correct, and undoubtedly the injunction would be granted.
I’m a nice guy that-a-way.
And, I am quite confident said councilman will be (has been) advised to have no further contact with me.
Heh.
Dan Jacobs said,
July 9, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Idiots and tyrants.
Gator said,
August 12, 2012 at 6:20 pm
For as long as I’ve known you, I have learned that you have that affect on the brass (those who believe they are in-charge). Funny how that works huh?
David.. :) said,
July 9, 2012 at 7:30 pm
All the communities that enacted temporary moratoriums on collective gardens are extending them, not just Vancouver. Axel Swanson from Longview came up with Vancouver’s moratorium as a paid adviser, ask him WTF..;)
capndrift said,
July 10, 2012 at 9:57 am
Hey, Dave! How ya been?
That name rings a bell. I could be mistaken, but I think he was copied on some correspondance I had with the county.
Didn’t the city of Kent pass an outright ban? I believe they’ve been served with a preliminary injunction. It’ll be interesting to see how that pans out.
I really don’t understand what this whole issue is about. “Collective Garden,” as defined by Washington law is not the same animal one might be a member of down California way.
Care to review the law?
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51A.085
Here it is obvious to any literate individual with a smidgen of comprehension all this does is allow 10 individuals to pool their resources. This law does not provide for distribution beyond that 10.
Remember our conversations about what constitutes “illegal distribution?” For the members of the collective that is no longer a question. Problem solved.
Wanna take a look at the code municipalities believe gives them the authority over collective gardens?
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51A.140
This section is speaking to “licensed dispensers.” In .085 above did you see any place where a collective was called a licensed dispenser? Nope. Did you see any place in .085 where licensing was a requirment for a garden? Nope.
I can’t help but wonder if these actions taken by Washington cities and counties are the result of ignorance or if it’s out and out malfeasance.
Fear maybe? The last time I was with my plants not a one of them reached out to grab me – have me for a snack. Hey! Maybe I can coin a new syndrome? “Little Shop of Horrors.”
Heh.